ORDER : R. Devdas J. The petitioners have completed the MD-Pharmacology course and are awaiting the Registration Certificates at the hands of the 4th respondent-Karnataka Medical Council. However, the Director of Medical Education seems to have intimated to all the Deans and Directors of all the Government Medical Colleges and Private Medical Colleges directing them not to return the original certificates/testimonials of the students even if they have completed the course since they are required to undergo compulsory rural service in terms of the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2012’, for short). It is also informed to the petitioners that since they have furnished bonds while taking admission to the MD course, they are required to undergo the compulsory rural service in terms of Karnataka Selection of Candidate For Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2006’, for short). 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have given several representations commencing from Annexure-E1, dated 27.08.2020 and such other representations at Annexures-E2 and E3, in respect of the 1st petitioner herein and F1 and F2, in respect of the 2nd petitioner herein, bringing to the notice of the Director of Medical Education that the petitioners have already undergone compulsory one year rural service during the year 2015-16, after the completion of the MBBS course and therefore the petitioners requested for exemption from compulsory service and for return of the original documents/testimonials. Nevertheless, no orders have passed in respect of the communications made by the petitioners. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that insofar as the provisions of the Act, 2012, is concerned, this Court in the case of Dr. Sadhwini M H, and others, in W.P.No. 15481/2020 and connected matters, which were disposed on 30.03.2021 has held that the provisions of the Act, 2012 shall be applicable only to students who were admitted to the course, be it, UG course, PG course of Super Specialty course from the academic year 2018-19 and onwards. Admittedly, the petitioners were admitted to MD course during the academic year 2017-18 and therefore provisions of the Act, 2012, is not applicable to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were admitted to MD course during the academic year 2017-18 and therefore provisions of the Act, 2012, is not applicable to the petitioners. The learned Counsel would also drawn the attention of this Court to communications dated 28.09.2018, at Annexure-G and 15.07.2019, at Annexure-H of the Director of the Medical Education while calling upon the students who have completed the UG courses, PG courses and Super Specialty courses for counseling and allotment of Primary Health Centers for undergoing compulsory services, where a ‘Note’ is put stating that the candidates who have already undergone one year rural service after completion of MBBS course are exempted from attending counseling. Further, it is also pointed out to another notification dated NIL January, 2021, wherein names of the students who had completed their UG courses in other States and had undergone compulsory rural service for a period of one year in their respective States were also exempted form undergoing one year compulsory rural service in terms of the Act, 2012. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Director of Medical Education was required to consider the representations given by the petitioners and pass orders/directions to the 4th respondent-Medical Council to issue the Registration Certificates to the petitioners, further directing the Heads of the Institutions to release all the original documents/testimonials. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri. R Subramanya, appearing for the respondent-State and Director of Medical Education, would submit that the exemption given to the students of other States as pointed out at Annexure-J and J1, is in respect of the Act, 2012 and not in respect of the Rules, 2006. It is submitted that the provisions of the Rules, 2006 are different from the provisions of the Act, 2012. It is submitted that in the Act 2012, there is a specific provision that if the student has already undergone compulsory service under the provisions of the said Act, there is no need to undergo training once again. However, in respect of Rules, 2006, there is no such provision. Even otherwise, it is submitted that under what circumstances the exemption was granted to the students of the other States is not forthcoming from the Notification and therefore the petitioners should not be allowed to claim parity with the students from other States. 5. However, in respect of Rules, 2006, there is no such provision. Even otherwise, it is submitted that under what circumstances the exemption was granted to the students of the other States is not forthcoming from the Notification and therefore the petitioners should not be allowed to claim parity with the students from other States. 5. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out to the students at Sl.No.4 at Annexure-J1, where the student is in fact a classmate of the petitioners, who also had undergone one year compulsory service at Primary Health Centers, Huvinahalli Kaval, Hassan Taluk and District, between 23.05.2014 to 22.05.2015 and the students at Sl.No.5 and 6 are said to have undergone compulsory service between the year 2016-17 and 2014-15 and exemption has been granted to such students. It is therefore, submitted at the hands of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when exemption is granted to other students similarly situated, the petitioners cannot be denied the same benefit. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the communication made by the Director of Medical Education has made a communication to the Deans and Directors of Medical Colleges, be it Government Colleges of Private managed Institutions that the students are required to undergo compulsory service in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2012, had fallen for consideration of this Court in W.P. No. 15481/2020 and connected matters and it is held that the provisions of the Act, 2012 shall be made applicable to students who were admitted to the course during academic year 2018-19 and onwards. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2012 is not applicable to the petitioners herein. On the other hand, if the petitioners have undergone one year compulsory rural service, in terms of the Rules, 2006 and have further furnished bonds undertaking one year compulsory rural service after completion of the PG course, they may be bound. However, the State Government has given exemption to similarly situated students taking into consideration that they have already undergone one year compulsory rural service after completion of the UG course, then similar benefit is required to be given to the petitioners also. Nevertheless, the Director of Medical Education was required to pass orders or give a reply to the representations given by the petitioners. 7. Nevertheless, the Director of Medical Education was required to pass orders or give a reply to the representations given by the petitioners. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent-Director of Medical Education to consider the representations given by the petitioners at Annexures-E series and F series and pass orders having regard to the observations made by this Court and orders earlier passed in respect of students who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners. The said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly.